People v. Carswell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carswell

105 A.D.2d 844, 482 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20970

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 26, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 844 (People v. Carswell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Carswell, 105 A.D.2d 844, 482 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered August 1,1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to have permitted testimony concerning the voided arrest of defendant in connection with the recovery of the complaining witness’ stolen automobile. However, this testimony was admissible to complete the narrative of the events leading to the spontaneous identification by the complaining witness of defendant at the precinct house (People v Gines, 36 NY2d 932).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered August 1,1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to have permitted testimony concerning the voided arrest of defendant in connection with the recovery of the complaining witness’ stolen automobile. However, this testimony was admissible to complete the narrative of the events leading to the spontaneous identification by the complaining witness of defendant at the precinct house (People v Gines, 36 NY2d 932).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 844, 482 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carswell-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack